why do theists and atheists have to argue?

Question

At least once a year there has to be some huge arguement! Why can't everyone just stop shoving crap in each others face to put one another down. People are claiming the bones of Jesus were found, People are claiming the arc of Noah was found. People say the earth was created by the big bang and we all evolved from monkies, others say god created the earth and all life. Wheather the arguments are argued through logical scientific statements from both points of view or if it is just philosophy, It helps us get nowhere. Because theists have logical proof as to why they think there has to a supernatural bein and atheists have logical proof as to why they think there can't be a supernatural bein? However, why do they think the answer to "How we got here?" will do anything. They act like once the answer is found the earth will turn into a world of perfection, Yet however close we get to answering "how?", we will probaly never understand "why we are here?"

This isn't a question of whose fault it is! it is both theists and atheists! And I have seen scientific proof for religious events same with atheist events! I a merly asking, Why don't they just stop trying to find the answer to everything and try prooving each other wrong and let one believe what one wants to belive

And don't assume my religion. I am gonna keep that annonymous to avoid people getting upset at me.

Answer 1

It's only theists and atheists who are threatened by the opposite position who feel the need to argue.
I believe in God. You don't. OK, let's go have a beer and talk about...TV? movies? Make fun of the latest celebutante who got arrested doing something stupid? Bake a cake?

I can do all these things with my non-theistic associates, because I don't feel that it is my job to convince them that they're wrong, and they aren't particularly committed to telling me how stupid I am for not sharing their beliefs. We'd rather have fun together and be friends.

In a way it's like any belief conflict: either you're so committed to your version of the truth that you can't accept that your neighbor has a differing version to which she is equally committed -- and then you fight -- or you realize that fighting with people about beliefs is far less enjoyable than just recognizing difference without taking it personally.

Note: contrary to the posted statements of some answerers, being a theist does not immediately mean you either believe in hell or ever tell anyone that they are going there. "Theist" and "Christian" and "hellfire & brimstone Christian" are not three words that mean the same thing.

Answer 2

I generally don't argue unless a pov is capable of causing hate and such to thrive. If it is forced upon law and such in a Democracy, and where human rights are denied, or just for conversation when someone asks why I don't believe in an omnipotent creator being.

Generally as long as nothing fits the above criteria, I don't argue, because if their beliefs teach them wisdom, altruism and compassion, etc. then that is what's best for them. Otherwise I answer questions according to what I've studied about them, and a few I've studied in significant detail, so you'll find me giving answers that even you might disagree with, simply because I answer within the parameters of the beliefs of the question being asked.

_()_

Answer 3

There's a fine line between an argument and a discussion. I prefer to be on the discussion side. It implies respect for the other's beliefs while maintaining your own different opinion. I think I engage in discourse with atheists a lot more than petty arguments. It's just exploring the other's mind in an attempt to grasp what he/she believes. I find it quite enjoyable.

Answer 4

on the atheist ingredient, i'm no longer arguing to deconvert theists. i do no longer care if a individual is any sort of religion, they are able to have faith what they pick. the reason I argue is using how some theists pick to contain smart layout in Biology classes in colleges. this is my sole reason. a non secular theory should not be in a technological understanding type, because it is not scientific. this is truly it, in spite of the actuality that I additionally pick theists to surrender telling me i circulate to hell, because of the fact this is relatively demanding.

Answer 5

I think the atheists are really angered by the prevalence of belief and believers. Christians are really omnipresent. It ticks em off.

The problem is, though, that "nothing" never substitutes for "something". We hear this in the politics room all the time. Simply saying "no" and "you're wrong" and "what you're doing is wrong" all the time is no substitute for a real platform or philosophy. That's what atheists will always -- despite the most wild pseudo-philosophical contortions -- lack, manifestly.

Answer 6

Ya I definately agree with you on that last part, but I guess it is just human nature. We always want everyone else to share our same idea. Atheists don't really get the whole religion thing, and theists want everyone to be a part of their religion becasue who knows why. So it ends up in arguments

Answer 7

Yes, "arguing" is bad. But "debating" is okay.

As for the "Jesus bones" story -- when the entire world archeological community dismisses the story as bunk, but the people pushing the story continue to try presenting it as fact, you know that there's an agenda at play -- and the agenda isn't honest science.
.

Answer 8

The problem isn't about letting one believe what he wants. The problem is that one faction (religious fundies) wants to indoctrinate everyone's kids with ignorant dogma, and do it at the public's expense.

Answer 9

I think a good healthy argument once in a while clears out the cobwebs and opens a few eyes. Don't you?

atheist

Answer 10

They argue about some which they have no direct experience with.

Humans are condemned to be free. Human is just stupid.

The only thing I am sure of is that I know absolutey ****** nothing, dammit.